Dianne Feinstein Censure Resonates with Democrats

Wow (0.00 / 0)

Imagine if all that energy and effort was being channeled to attack Republicans or help Democratic candidates.

---

by: sacguy @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 15:39:36 PM CST

Imagine if we had that $4M the CDP (8.00 / 4)

gave to Nuñez...

Or imagine if all the energy the CDP is putting into Prop 93 were actually directed toward something other than a selective incumbent protection plan.

---

by: jsw @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 15:50:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Imagine if (8.00 / 4)

Democrats actually did their jobs and stood up for our basic rights, for the Constitution, instead of finding excuses to cave in to those Republicans.

Seven years of George Bush has shown the Democratic base that it's worse to let bad Democrats off the hook than it is to hang with them out of fear. We can't beat back Republicans if Democrats are spending their time finding ways to help Republicans. The stakes are too high to sit and do nothing.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 15:58:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, you simple villager! (8.00 / 2)

---

by: jsw @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 16:06:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank god we have Dianne Feinstein to save us (8.00 / 2)

From such simple folk as I.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 16:16:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Imagine (8.00 / 2)

If party affiliation was less important than the actual legislative successes and failures.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 16:36:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What would really shock me (8.00 / 5)

would be if you ever actually noticed or commented when we do the bazillion things we all do to support Democrats and/or attack Republicans. The only time you show up at all is when you want to shake your finger at us.

---

by: tface1000 @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 16:37:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Imagine #2 (8.00 / 3)

If torture wasn't up for debate in the Democratic Party.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 16:42:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

hahahahahahahahaha (8.00 / 4)

Sorry, I was laughing too hard to notice what you were referring to.  Are you talking about the efforts to demonize the California Nurses Association, perhaps the most instrumental actor in stopping Arnold's 2005 ballot initiatives?  Or was it the energy in attacking UNITE HERE and their hiring choices?  Or was it attacking progressives who argue for bold policy positions on this site every single day?

I may be flamed for this, but since when has Fabian Nunez ever channeled any effort to helping any Democrat who wasn't already working for him?

California's problems aren't in France or Brazil, they're in California.

By the way, call us when you're out of a job next November, if you improve those writing chops, maybe we'll let you pen a diary or two.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 16:53:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (0.00 / 0)

explains your every attack on the Speaker. Thanks for finally "disclosing."

Maybe if you spent 10 minutes actually looking at the Speaker's record (like today's announcement that he scored a 100 percent from the California League of Conservation voters), rather than piling on, you'd know better.

First of all, CNA was hardly the "most instrumental actor" in stopping the 2005 agenda. Other than getting publicity for it, that is. In fact, they refused to join the coalition of organized labor that aired the ads, did the grassroots work, and actually halted it. Then again, you'd have to praise the Speaker for his work in being the lead spokesperson in the state against the Governor in '05. Can't have that while you're on the UNITE-HERE payroll I guess.

Maybe you should also think about getting a passport. France has a high speed train (the fastest in the world). California is considering billions on it. Guess it makes sense to me (and other progressives, like Assemblywoman Fiona Ma) to get a first-hand look and talk to the architects behind France's plan. Ditto for Brazil, which is leading the world in alternative fuels development. The Speaker was joined on that trip by the Natural Resources Defense Council, and now California is leading the US in alternative fuels.

I guess it really is too much to try to get you to focus on Republicans when you're being bankrolled to attack the Speaker on a semi-regular basis.

---

by: sacguy @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 17:34:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Might say the same to you (8.00 / 4)

Haven't noticed you here talking much about Republicans.  Only bashing Democrats.  Pot/kettle/black.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 17:43:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

tell you what (8.00 / 6)

Give me an address and I will mail you the $300 I was paid for video services in support of the upcoming tribal compacts initiatives, which is, you know, actual work and not just being paid to slander people through the media.  I am eager to write this check.  The difference, of course, is that I actually bothered to mention who I work for and what I do, as a badge of honor, incidentally, and with no regrets whatsoever.  I don't apologize for it by saying it's the "best I can do."

I guess it's too much to ask to get you to focus on anything other than what might hurt the little circle jerk you've got going up in Sacramento.  The Majority Report is an absolute joke.  You ought to rename it the "Term Limits, Tribal Gaming and Hillary For President Jamboree."  If I wanted a steady diet of propaganda I'd rent Triumph of the Will.

Great work getting that high-speed rail legislation passed, by the way.  Tremendous leadership.

p.s. What time did the train go through the Bordeaux wine shop?

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 17:48:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yikes (8.00 / 3)

Dave I think I'm gonna take you out for a beer now.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 19:22:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow. (8.00 / 5)

Just wow. Step away from the computer.  You are NOT HELPING YOURSELF, YOUR BOSS, OR ANY OF THE INITIATIVES YOU ARE TRYING TO SUPPORT.

On a side note, damn, $300?  D-Day should have asked for a political abuse premium.  If D-Day wants to refund that $300 he took for doing video work, I'll comp him for it, just so he's square on the deal.  And because his response to the accusations of "being on the payroll" was absolutely priceless.  Worth $300 any day.

---

by: jsw @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 18:42:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So presumably (8.00 / 2)

You're bankrolled to to attack democratic activists throughout the state? Cause see, you have a job that pays you money. And you do things. So they must be connected.  This is really not a road you want to be going down.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:52:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Take a Deep Breath Everybody ... (5.00 / 1)

Those who actually know me (from beyond the defense of my boss on this site) know that I've spent the better part of 25 years electing Democrats and defeating Republicans. And on the state job level, working to push a progressive agenda. I think, like every family, that we can disagree. But I also think that we should focus on the forest instead of the saplings.

I just received a great email from the head of the CDP's enviro caucus opposing the censure of DiFi. Like me, he doesn't agree with her positions on the two issues cited. But also like me, he knows she's a terrific Senator who has done amazing things for our state. And she's an amazing vote getter in places like the Central Valley.

Sorry, I'm just not a fan of Democrats eating their young. We've got Republicans out there trying to screw us on an electoral college initiative, another one promoting himself by opening up his checkbook to thwart an initiative being pushed by Democrats who think the legislature needs to be more effective, and health care reform being opposed by the big drug companies and big insurers. Call me crazy, but I'd rather see ALL of us focus on these issues rather than turning on one of our own.

As for getting money, as long as there's full disclosure, I'm good with that. I just hadn't seen it before that post (perhaps it was posted previously but I hadn't seen it). So cash the check. Or maybe send it along to ACT BLUE.

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:53:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And that's fine (8.00 / 4)

But you've gotta look in the mirror. All your rhetoric about Democrats not eating their young looks pretty silly when you spend so much time here attacking Democrats.  The name calling and accusatory tone often starts from your comments lately, and it defuses any opportunity for "family disagreements." I'm pretty sure that everyone here would love to legitimately talk about these issues with you, but insulting everyone isn't the way to go about it.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:02:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, Act Blue! (8.00 / 2)

Well, I'm not sure I agree with you on the substance of whether we should comment on Sen. Feinstein's recent votes. I think she has failed a lot of people who supported her for a long time. She failed the LGBT community on Southwick, and she failed all those who support a torture-free America with her vote on Mukasey.  Is she a terrible Senator? No, she's pretty good on the environment, usually ok on Iraq. But she's certainly no Barbara Boxer. And it is through public pressure that progressives make their voice heard to our leaders.

However, I certainly agree we need to elect more Democrats, it's just that we also need to elect better Democrats.  Not all Democrats are created equal. We only have a few opportunities to question our Democratic leaders once they are elected, as contested primaries are rare. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to powerful officials like our Senators.

There are a ton of issues out there to resolve. There's the Dirty Tricks initiative, there's the global warming crisis, and there's the Debacle in Iraq as well as a whole host of issues. We need to do our best to elect more and better Democrats by defeating Republicans, but we also need to ensure that our leaders understand the importance of respecting their constituents and the grassroots leaders in the community.

And, well, we should all ActBlue.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:11:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting turn of phrase (8.00 / 2)

Like you, we don't like Democrats "eating their young." But the way we see it, Feinstein's key role in getting both Mukasey AND Southwick confirmed, and now her efforts to push through retroactive immunity, are as clear a case of "Democrats eating their young" as can be imagined.

Each of those actions will have a long-term and damaging effect on our nation's future. Many of us here are young and we don't particularly enjoy the prospect of a nation where racists like Southwick are in key positions in our courts, where authoritarians who ignore basic laws and rights like Mukasey are in charge of our nation's justice system, and where companies and presidents can break the law with impunity - Congress will just retroactively make it OK.

Yet whenever we dare speak up in criticism of these indefensible actions, it becomes WE who are seen as attacking other Dems, as causing unnecessary trouble, even though we're merely reacting. The implication is that it's perfectly OK for elected Dems to sell other Dems down the river, but a high crime to voice dissent against it.

The censure resolution is not intended to get DiFi to leave office. It's an effort to try and turn her into a better Democrat, one who doesn't see their role in office as greasing the wheels for Bush's next assault on our fragile democratic rights.

I may only speak for myself here, but there's no joy taken in fighting elected Democrats. It would be SO much easier if they fought for our rights, had our back when it mattered. We'd MUCH rather be uniting with them to beat back Republicanism and working to build a better country. But when those elected Dems prefer to join with Republicans, we're not going to sit by and let it happen. To assume otherwise is to ignore the lessons of the last 7 years.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:44:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Take your own deep breath (8.00 / 3)

Or, alternatively, let me take you back to this post of yours from March of this year, where you lambasted four California Congresswomen, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson and Barbara Lee, for their vote against an Iraq spending bill.  They actually shifted to support the bill several hours before you posted it, but that didn't fit your storyline.

So it's OK for Steve to eat his young, as long as they're crazy out-of-the-mainstream libruls trying to destroy America by ending an unpopular war.  I'd rather see him focus on ALL of these other issues instead of turning on his own (which, interestingly enough, are among the most consistently progressive Representatives in the entire state).

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 13:09:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey I Tried (0.00 / 0)

Apparently I can't get the venom to stop pouring from your veins. Read the post, David. I did the same thing there that I did here: criticizing Democrats who criticize Democrats publicly. If you don't agree with that philosophy, fine. That's your right.

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 16:41:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what about the Lieberman example? (0.00 / 0)

Until Lieberman lost the primary, the DCCC had refused to use Iraq as an issue of contrast. Yet after the massive press about Democrats holding a DINO accountable, the DCCC used an Iraq ad as a closer for TV independent expenditures.

It was accountability from the base that forced the insiders to realize they were way out of step with the American people.

Back then, the Iraq issue the base forced upon the "leadership" had similar polling numbers:

Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no.

Just like Iraq, supporting the Bill of Rights is a brite-line, prima facia issue.

Accountability is a good thing, the only people who need fear it fear it for a reason.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 16:48:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So (0.00 / 0)

by your standards, as long as somebody else starts it, it's fine?

Also, is there anything that an elected Democrat could do that would prompt you to criticize them?  You've made blanket statements here suggesting that any criticism of elected Democrats is "eating our young," so I can only assume that you would never be critical of any Democrat.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 16:59:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are we in private right now? (8.00 / 2)

You can't say "I was only criticizing Democrats who criticize Democrats" and not expect that to rebound on you.  I know the self-regard is overpowering, but you're pretty much guilty of everything that you're decrying.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 17:14:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

eating our young? (0.00 / 0)

I think a strong argument can be made that discouraging the fresh blood in our Party from holding accountable career politicians would actually be a better example of eating our young.

Maybe it is just me, but I don't see incumbent protection for the sake of incumbent protection resonating online.

The new energy in the party didn't get involved out of inspiration with the job of the incumbents, most got involved to fill the vacuum when we were let down by incumbents.

Feel free to throw yourself on the sword for a lame duck politician who is being almost universally condemned by the base, but don't expect such a position online to help your incumbent protection initiative.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 16:14:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Geez Louise (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect, the freshman class in the Assembly is one of the most talented group of Democrats I've seen in awhile. And because of term limits, these new members aren't folks who've been here 20 years. THEY are the new energy.

And other than the attacks here, the Speaker isn't being "universally condemed" by his base. Check out Sal Roselli's video here, for example. Or the CLCV 100 percent rating of the Speaker issued yesterday.

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 16:44:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no, no, no!!! (0.00 / 0)

I was talking about DiFi, not the Speaker. And yes, we have a great freshman class. All I was saying was I don't think that defending incumbent protection for the sake of incumbent protection in the case of DiFi helps pass the term limits initiative which I assume is of greater concern to you than defending DiFi against the blogs and Moveon and DFA and grassroots clubs across the state.

And I posted the Rosselli video on the front page. And props on the CLCV scorecard.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 16:52:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Excuse me? Take a deep breath? (8.00 / 2)

Steve, upthread you wrote

"Maybe if you spent 10 minutes actually looking at the Speaker's record…rather than piling on, you'd know better."

"Can't have that while you're on the UNITE-HERE payroll"

"Maybe you should also think about getting a passport."

"I guess it really is too much to try to get you to focus on Republicans"

And now you're telling others to take a deep breath? You're sarcastic and insulting, and then you want people to take a deep breath?

I happen to be agnostic on the DiFi resolution myself, but I think it's mighty hypocritical of you to be telling others to take a deep breath after the stuff you've posted here in the last few days. Your recent comments on Calitics reflect extremely poorly on the Speaker's office, IMO.

---

by: gjones @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 18:15:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for your opinion though (0.00 / 0)

all of those one-liners you picked up were in RESPONSE to attacks in similar vein.

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 19:28:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great excuse for childish behavior (8.00 / 1)

"S/he started it!"

Number one, two wrongs don't make a right. Number two, you are a public figure who represents the Speaker.

I have quite definitely had encounters with rude commenters here on Calitics, and on occasion I have chosen to respond pretty rudely in kind. I've probably even been the initiator of rudeness. But I do not represent one of the top elected officials in the state.

Furthermore, I don't go around making sarcastic or impolite comments and then follow up by telling others to "take a deep breath."

Your hypocrisy is stunning. Just absolutely stunning.

---

by: gjones @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 22:45:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let me ask you something, Steve-O (8.00 / 2)

do you support Leslie Southwick?  Do you support Mukasey's "the president is above the law and torture is okay" testimony before the Senate?

If not, perhaps you can understand the anger we feel at a supposedly Democratic Senator who has enabled these nominations to come out of the judiciary committee.

Perhaps the reason that you don't want to see any accountability for Feinstein is that if Democratic leadership somehow gets held accountable by the Democratic Party base, your boss might be next.  Is that it?

Maybe you should come here and watch what we actually do for Democrats and against Republican candidates, instead of concern-trolling us whenever the idea of accountability for current Democratic leadership happens to bubble up in the blogosphere.

---

by: Dante Atkins @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:36:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

... I don't support either of those positions. But I also don't support censuring a U.S. Senator who has spent her life moving the ball forward for Democrats.

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 16:45:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Republican Rage (0.00 / 0)

You're right, Steve.  We really should "channel" our energy and effort to attack the Republican Senator from California who voted to confirm  Mukasey.  Or the Republican Senator from California who championed Southwick. 

What's her name again?  Oh yeah, Dianne Feinstein.

There's a certain responsibility that comes along with being in the majority.  Holding those in our own party accountable is just as important (if not more so) than holding those in the other party accountable.

I am saddened to see this discussion turn so personal.  Why can't there be a calm and reasoned discussion about holding senior officials in our own party accountable for the values we all cherish?

---

by: Be_Devine @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:10:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The resolution would probably pass... (0.00 / 0)

if it made it to the floor. But it won't. As the Huffpost article points out,

The censure resolution faces an uphill battle. In order to be considered by the full executive board, it must first make it through the party's resolutions committee, which must approve the text unanimously.

The odds of the censure resolution getting a unanimous vote by the Resolutions Committee is nil.

See ya'll at the annual CDP convention (where the Resolutions Committee will send only 10 resolutions to the floor...)

---

by: gjones @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 16:34:04 PM CST

Perhaps (0.00 / 0)

But the point is to make a point.  Which seems pretty attainable.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 16:37:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

do you think it would pass? (0.00 / 0)

Knowing the makeup of the e-board, I'm not sure it's a slam dunk.  There would be a lot of institutional machinery against it in a floor vote.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 18:52:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oh, and I agree (0.00 / 0)

It won't get that far, being a late resolution.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 18:52:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Would it pass? (0.00 / 0)

You're right, it probably would be an uphill battle, and the Res committee would likely water it down a lot. But if it had gotten in before the late res deadline this time the institutional machinery might not have had enough time to get geared up.

---

by: gjones @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 22:55:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this is why there is an exception to the 10 day rule (8.00 / 1)

The vote happened too late for the ten day rule and by definition, an exception is not a precedent so I see no reason whatsoever why this should get a vote. And if it doesn't, it will come up again at the next meeting and the next and the next...

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 23:04:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's an exception to the 10 day rule? (0.00 / 0)

I didn't know that -- can you explain?

---

by: gjones @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:49:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

for exactly these circumstances (8.00 / 1)

As long as Resolutions agrees this is worth of an exception, this goes to the Executive Board for a vote.

Considering it isn't like this is taking Feinstein by surpise, was by based on an event within the 10 day rule, and has had more public attention than any reso ever it is the textbook example of why the rules provide for such a circumstance.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 18:10:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes but... (8.00 / 1)

A late resolution only gets consideration if 100% of the Resolution Committee members agree to it. The odds of that are nonexistent. There's just no way every single committee member will vote for it. That's the problem.

---

by: gjones @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 18:18:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it is sad our expectations for the CDP are so low (8.00 / 1)

I agree that it is likely going to be killed without a hearing or vote despite the fact it is precisely for a situation like this that there is an exception.

I anticipate such an outcome will in ensure it coming back up at the next meeting (unfortunately, by refusing to hold her accountable, there will probably be more paragraphs starting with "whereas" by then).

I also see how this is dealt with setting the tone for next year's San Jose convention. If this comes of as having been killed by insiders regardless of merit, then San Jose may start off the way San Diego ended.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 18:40:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

San Jose is a platform convention (0.00 / 0)

there will be no resolutions at it, IIRC.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 18:49:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OTOH (8.00 / 1)

We should probably acknowledge that CDP resolutions don't amount to a hill of beans anyway.

---

by: gjones @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 19:32:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]